Cyrellys Geibhendach is an author, facilitator, cyber researcher, exopolitical mediator, retired professional construction consultant and operations manager. She is currently Administrator for Compass Morainn, an association of exopolitical mediators and associates. She is a contributing author of several online publications, an active blogger, and member of Open Minds Forum. She currently lives and works in Montana with her family on their ranch and participates in the local homeschool community. Cyrellys can be contacted via email.

The exopolitical mediator closely observes participant coherency or group coherency in mediation situations. The observations are used to manage the group communication perspective. A litmus test for evaluating the dialog compares and applies the most useful communication questions to the trends or events within each revolution of the discussion or communication event. This allows the mediator to recognize the development of new levels of stress associated with unfulfilled needs, and the subsequent trends transcending fair reason in participant expectations.

“Taking a communication perspective, the most useful questions are not "can you hear me?" or even "do you understand me?" They are "what are we making together?" or, referring to specific events or objects such as a person, an organization, or a culture, "how is it being made in the process of interaction?" or, "how can we make better social worlds?"” ~ W. Barnett Pearce (1)

W. Barnett Pearce discerns and illustrates the root intent of modern group communication. These questions being descriptive of the effort embodied in exopolitical communications regarding the contact paradigm can then be applied in the evaluation of the following exopolitical trend issue: would exopolitical researchers be reasonable in expecting or demanding that Insider disclosers of the Contact Paradigm violate national security in order to produce a proof of paradigm along with their communication event in order for the event to be seriously receivable by the exopolitical community? It has been suggested that due to past disinformation campaigns, information obscuring, the use of exit strategies, the preponderance of unverifiable stories, and the heaps of community conjecture thrown upon every event which researchers must wade through, that the future of insider communications is in severe jeopardy. Rather than engage in the formulation of an equitable solution such as an Amnesty for insiders or the contact control structure itself as has been requested repeatedly by insiders, some participants in the exopolitical community have agreed with the following in regards to unproven communications (communication events without verifiable proof of paradigm claimed), “If they are intending to obscure, then they have. For now, we are no further in knowing the truth. Perhaps we should put a sign out in the front: "Proof, or no entry".”(2)

The individuals who would consider this constriction are indeed asking, "what are we making together?" In their perception the Insiders communication events fail to fulfill (with 50 years of routine consistency) the expectation of working together; producing clear forward movement. However, asserting such restrictions upon the communication event, without first providing an avenue for them to legally produce and release that level of expected proof (without undue risk to personal self-injury), is certainly unreasonable. It is an example of failure to partake in a team effort or the outright withdrawal from group coherency. In promoting such restrictions they may be asking "what are we making together” but they are not allowing an equitable joint effort to occur. Therefore their response becomes self-defeating for their particular needs.

Of serious concern, when participants retreat from group coherency, they open themselves to follow with even greater emotional responses, exerting their personal power of self-assertion and aggression in order to cut through barriers, penetrating the consciousness of the other participants, such as considering more extreme requirements or actions which violate the sovereignty of other participants. An example in this manner of a further reach for proof and power can be found in the suggestion that abductees, contactees, and MILAB victims relinquish their sovereignty by allowing themselves to be chipped with a device like the RFID tag made by Verichip which can then be tracked via GPS. According to this suggestion, such a device would be formatted to output a minute by minute log of where the device has been and could even be networked into Google Maps to track its movements in real-time. Verichip’s human implant device has been almost wholly rejected by the major public whereas in contrast it has been toyed and experimented with on a small scale by elites and their high security facilities. It’s blatant violation of human rights and privacy has largely restricted its use despite international governments plans to implement it as a data gathering, security and control staple in human society. Allowance of this suggestion to manifest into real use could carry consequences which legally impact a population subgroup of unknown size around the globe and then traverse the scope of application to enact itself upon a determinedly unwilling global population which creates a spiral of conflict outside of the contact paradigm. Such a conflict would be a detriment to both the Disclosure process and the secrecy maintenance proponents.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.